SUMMARY REPORT OF THE EIGHTEENTH
MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT
DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER:

30 OCTOBER - 3 NOVEMBER 2006

The
eighteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer (MOP-18) took place in New Delhi, India, from
30 October - 3 November 2006. Over 550 people participated, representing
governments, UN agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental
organizations, academia, industry, and the agricultural sector.

MOP-18
opened with a preparatory segment from Monday, 30 October, to Wednesday, 1
November, that addressed the MOP’s substantive agenda items and related
draft decisions. The preparatory segment was followed by a high-level
segment, which convened from 2-3 November to adopt the decisions forwarded
to it by the preparatory segment. Since the preparatory segment did not
conclude its work by Wednesday, it convened several times on Thursday and
Friday.

MOP-18
adopted 37 decisions, including on: essential-use nominations and other
issues arising out of the 2006 reports of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel (TEAP); future work following the Secretariat’s
workshop on the Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and the TEAP; critical-use nominations; difficulties faced by some
Article 5 parties manufacturing CFC-based MDIs; treatment of stockpiled
ozone-depleting substances (ODS) relative to compliance; a feasibility
study on developing a system for monitoring the transboundary movement of
ODS; and key challenges to be faced by parties in protecting the ozone
layer over the next decade.

When
the meeting concluded late on Friday evening, parties had managed to adopt
decisions on almost all agenda items, with the majority of negotiations
conducted in contact and informal groups. Parties did not agree to a draft
or final decision on Canada’s proposal to adjust the Montreal Protocol
to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5 parties. Items deferred for
consideration until OEWG-27 included multi-year exemptions for CUEs and
options that parties may consider for preventing harmful trade in methyl
bromide stocks.

A
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE OZONE REGIME

Concerns
that the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer could be at risk from CFCs
and other anthropogenic substances were first raised in the early 1970s.
At that time, scientists warned that the release of these substances into
the atmosphere could deplete the ozone layer, hindering its ability to
prevent harmful ultraviolet rays from reaching the Earth. This would
adversely affect ocean ecosystems, agricultural productivity and animal
populations, and harm humans through higher rates of skin cancers,
cataracts and weakened immune systems. In response to this growing
concern, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) convened a
conference in March 1977 that adopted a World Plan of Action on the Ozone
Layer and established a Coordinating Committee to guide future
international action on ozone protection.

VIENNA
CONVENTION: In May 1981, the UNEP Governing
Council launched negotiations on an international agreement to protect the
ozone layer and, in March 1985, the Vienna Convention for the Protection
of the Ozone Layer was adopted. The Convention called
for cooperation on monitoring, research and data exchange, but did not
impose obligations to reduce the use of ODS. The Convention now has
190 parties.

MONTREAL
PROTOCOL: In September 1987, efforts to
negotiate binding obligations to reduce the use of ODS led to the adoption
of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Protocol introduced
control measures for some CFCs and halons for developed countries
(non-Article 5 parties). Developing countries (Article 5 parties) were
granted a grace period allowing them to increase their use of these ODS
before taking on commitments. The Protocol currently
has 190 parties.

Since
1987, several amendments and adjustments to the Protocol have been
adopted, adding new obligations and additional ODS, and adjusting existing
control schedules. Amendments require ratification by a defined number of
parties before their entry into force, while adjustments enter into force
automatically.

LONDON
AMENDMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS: Delegates to the second Meeting of the Parties (MOP-2),
which took place in London, UK, in 1990, tightened control schedules and
agreed to add ten more CFCs to the list of ODS, as well as carbon
tetrachloride (CTC) and methyl chloroform. To date, 183 parties have
ratified the London Amendment. MOP-2 also
established the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal
Protocol (Multilateral Fund). The Multilateral Fund meets the incremental
costs incurred by Article 5 parties in implementing the Protocol’s control measures and
finances clearinghouse functions, including technical assistance,
information, training, and the costs of the Multilateral Fund Secretariat. The Fund is replenished
every three years, and received pledges of US$2.1 billion between 1991 and
2005.

COPENHAGEN
AMENDMENT AND
ADJUSTMENTS: At MOP-4, held in
Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1992, delegates tightened existing control
schedules and added controls on methyl bromide, hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs)
and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). MOP-4 also agreed to
enact non-compliance procedures and to establish an Implementation Committee
(ImpCom). The ImpCom examines cases of possible non-compliance by parties,
and makes recommendations to the MOP aimed at
securing full compliance. To date, 174 parties have ratified the Copenhagen Amendment.

MONTREAL
AMENDMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS: At MOP-9, held in
Montreal, Canada, in 1997, delegates agreed to a new licensing system for
the import and export of ODS, in addition to tightening existing control
schedules. They also agreed to a ban on trade in methyl bromide with
non-parties to the Copenhagen Amendment.
To date, 147 parties have ratified the Montreal Amendment.

BEIJING
AMENDMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS: At MOP-11,
held in Beijing, China, in 1999, delegates agreed to controls on
bromochloromethane and additional controls on HCFCs, and to reporting on
methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) applications. MOP-11
also agreed to replenish the Multilateral Fund with US$440 million for 2000-2002. At
present, 116 parties have ratified the Beijing Amendment.

MOPs
12-14:MOP-12,
held in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, in 2000, adopted the Ouagadougou
Declaration, which encouraged parties to take steps to prevent illegal
production, consumption and trade in ODS, and to harmonize customs codes.
The following year in Colombo, Sri Lanka, delegates to MOP-13
adopted the Colombo
Declaration, which encouraged parties to apply due care in using
substances that may have ozone depletion potential (ODP), and to determine
and use available, accessible and affordable alternatives and technologies
that minimize environmental harm while protecting the ozone layer. At MOP-14,
held in Rome, Italy, in 2002, the MOP’s
decisions covered such matters as compliance, interaction with the World Trade
Organization, and replenishment of the Multilateral
Fund with US$474 million for 2003-2005.

MOP-15:
Like its predecessors, MOP-15, held in Nairobi, Kenya, in November 2003,
resulted in decisions on a range of issues, including the implications of
the entry into force of the Beijing Amendment. However, disagreements
surfaced over exemptions allowing the use of methyl bromide beyond 2004
for “critical” uses where no technically or economically feasible
alternatives are available. As delegates could not reach agreement, they
took the unprecedented step of calling for an “extraordinary” MOP.

FIRST
EXTRAORDINARY MOP: The first
Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (ExMOP-1)
took place from 24-26 March 2004, in Montreal, Canada. Parties agreed to
critical-use exemptions (CUEs) for methyl bromide for 2005 only. The
introduction of a “double-cap” concept distinguishing between old and
new production of methyl bromide was central to this compromise. Parties
agreed to a cap for new production of 30% of parties’ 1991 baseline
levels, meaning that where the capped amount was insufficient for critical
uses allocated in 2005, parties were required to use existing stockpiles.
Parties also achieved compromises on conditions for approving and
reporting on CUEs, and the working procedures of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee (MBTOC).

MOP-16:
MOP-16 took place in Prague, Czech Republic, from 22-26 November 2004. The
parties adopted decisions on the Multilateral
Fund, ratification, compliance, trade in ODS and other
matters, but work on methyl bromide exemptions for 2006 was not completed.
For the second time, parties decided to hold an extraordinary MOP.

SECOND
EXTRAORDINARY MOP:ExMOP-2 was held on
1 July 2005, in Montreal, Canada. Parties agreed to supplementary levels
of CUEs for 2006 left unresolved at MOP-16.
Under this decision, parties also agreed that: CUEs allocated domestically
that exceed levels permitted by the MOP must be drawn
from stocks rather than from new production; methyl bromide stocks must be
reported; and parties must “endeavor” to allocate CUEs to the
particular categories specified in the decision.

COP-7/MOP-17:MOP-17
was held jointly with the seventh Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention
in Dakar, Senegal, from 12-16 December 2005. Parties approved
essential-use exemptions for 2006 and 2007, supplemental CUEs for 2006 and
CUEs for 2007. They authorized production and consumption of methyl
bromide in non-Article 5 parties for laboratory and analytical critical
uses, and requested the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) to
report on such uses. Other decisions concerned, inter alia:
submission of information on methyl bromide in space fumigation;
replenishment of the Multilateral
Fund with US$470.4 million for 2006-2008; and the terms
of reference for a feasibility study on developing a monitoring system for
the transboundary movement of controlled ODS. Parties deferred
consideration of: the US’s proposal on multi-year CUEs; Canada’s
proposal on disclosure of interest guidelines for bodies such as the TEAP and its Technical Options Committees (TOCs); and
the European Community’s proposal for an adjustment to the methyl
bromide phase-out schedule for Article 5 parties.

CURRENT
ODS CONTROL SCHEDULES: Under the amendments to the Montreal Protocol,
non-Article 5 parties were required to phase out production and
consumption of: halons by 1994; CFCs, CTC, hydrobromochlorofluorocarbons
and of methyl chloroform by 1996; bromochloromethane by 2002; and methyl
bromide by 2005. Consumption of HCFCs is to be phased out by 2030 (with
interim targets prior to those dates), with production to have been
stabilized by 2004. Article 5 parties were required to phase out
production and consumption of bromochloromethane by 2002. These parties
must still phase out: production and consumption of CFCs, halons and CTC
by 2010, and methyl chloroform and methyl bromide by 2015; and consumption
of HCFCs by 2040 (with interim reduction targets prior to phase-out).
Production of HCFCs in Article 5 countries must be stabilized by 2016. As
for non-Article 5 parties, there are exemptions to these phase-outs to
allow for certain uses lacking feasible alternatives or in particular
circumstances.

MOP-18
REPORT

PREPARATORY SEGMENT
Marco Gonzalez, Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat, opened
MOP-18's preparatory segment, commending India's strong commitment to the
Montreal Protocol. He highlighted progress achieved in reducing ODS, and
current challenges in and opportunities for advancing the goals of the
Protocol.

Stressing
the importance of the Montreal Protocol, Thiru A.
Raja, India’s Minister of Environment and Forests,
called on delegates to consider favorably the use of CFCs in MDIs in
developing countries, given the lack of viable alternatives. He also noted
other issues to be discussed at the meeting, including the safe disposal
of unused ODS and illegal trade.

Delegates
adopted the agenda (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/1), with additional items proposed by
the European Community (EC), the US, China and Argentina, and agreed to
the organization of work, as suggested by the Co-Chairs of the preparatory
segment, Tom Land (US) and Nadzri Yahaya (Malaysia). The EC’s proposed
inclusion of n-propyl bromide, the US’s proposed inclusion of
cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and
China’s proposed inclusion of the 2008 Beijing Olympics were addressed
under the agenda item on “Other matters.” Argentina’s proposed
inclusion concerning the Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and the TEAP (IPCC/TEAP Special Report) was
addressed in the contact group set up to consider work to follow from the
experts’ meeting on the IPCC/TEAP Special Report.

Throughout
MOP-18, delegates discussed agenda items and corresponding draft decisions
in plenary, contact groups and informal consultations. Rather than
addressing agenda items in numerical order, issues likely to lead to the
establishment of contact groups were introduced to plenary on Monday and
Tuesday, in an effort to ensure adequate time for resolution of these
issues. Draft decisions were approved by the preparatory segment, and
forwarded to the high-level segment for adoption on Friday evening. The
description of the negotiations, the summary of the decisions and other
outcomes can be found below.

HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT
Thiru A.Raja, India's Minister of Environment and Forests, welcomed
participants to the high-level segment on Thursday, 2 November. UNEP
Deputy Executive Director Shafqat Kakakhel reaffirmed UNEP's readiness to
continue assisting parties with implementation of the Protocol, and
stressed that political support is vital for overcoming remaining
challenges. President of the MOP-18 Bureau, Elias Mulungula (Democratic
Republic of Congo), noted that the Protocol is progressing towards
universal membership.

Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stressed the link between poverty, economic
growth and environmental protection, and highlighted India’s progress in
implementing the Protocol. He noted
lessons from the Protocol, including
that trade restrictions are not advisable, and that compliance should be
more creative and less adversarial. He also called for channeling
additional financial and technological resources to Article 5 parties to
achieve the objectives of the Montreal Protocol.

Namonarain
Meena, Minister of State for Environment and Forests, India, reiterated
the significance of the interface between the environment and development.

Parties
then elected Bureau members for MOP-18.
Elias Malungula (Democratic Republic of Congo) was elected President,
Evgeny Gorshkov (Russian Federation), Juan Filpo (Dominican Republic) and
Muhammad Masgood Akhtar (Pakistan) were elected Vice-Presidents, and Paul
Krajnik (Austria) was elected Rapporteur. Parties then agreed
to the organization of work presented by MOP-18
President Mulungula.

PRESENTATIONS
BY ASSESSMENT PANELS:Parties heard
presentations by the assessment panels on their work on the 2002-2006
assessment reports.

Scientific
Assessment Panel: A.R. Ravishankara,
Scientific Steering Committee of the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP),
presented the major findings and conclusions of the 2006 Science
Assessment, including the expected delay in the recovery of the ozone
layer, the upward revision of methyl bromide’s ODP and the impact of
climate change. David Fahey, Lead Author, explained the 2006 update of the
“Twenty Questions and Answers about the Ozone Layer,” designed for a
general audience.

Task
Force on Emissions Discrepancies: Lambert
Kuijpers, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Emissions Discrepancies
(Netherlands), reported on the sources of discrepancies between emissions
determined from bottom-up methods and atmospheric measurements for certain
chemicals, as requested by COP-17 (Decision XVII/19). He noted
conclusions, including that consistency between bottom-up and top-down
assessments is better than was portrayed in the IPCC/TEAP Special Report.

COUNTRY
STATEMENTS: On Thursday and Friday,
delegates heard statements from senior officials and heads of delegation.
Many countries thanked India for hosting, and the Secretariat for
organizing, MOP-18. Delegates provided details of national and regional
activities concerning the elimination of ODS, including information on
legislative developments, training of customs officials and technicians,
and public awareness campaigns. The Democratic Republic of Congo, for
example, highlighted its commitment to sharing experiences in customs
codification with Central African countries.

Delegates
also highlighted the latest scientific findings on the ozone layer’s
recovery, as contained in the 2006 Scientific Assessment, and noted the
upcoming twentieth anniversary of the Protocol’s signing. Canada offered
to host MOP-19 in Montreal in celebration of this anniversary. China and
Tanzania linked the Protocol’s success to its incorporation of the idea
of common but differentiated responsibilities, while several countries,
including Guinea and Libya, cautioned against complacency at this advanced
stage in the Protocol’s phase-out. The European Union (EU), Fiji, and
Trinidad and Tobago welcomed the initiation of a dialogue on the future of
the Protocol.

Article
5 parties, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, China, Georgia, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Turkey and Uruguay, thanked international partners and relevant
non-Article 5 parties for assistance with ODS phase-out projects. Some
Article 5 parties, including China, Haiti, India, Malaysia and Syria, also
called for continued and increased assistance from the Multilateral Fund,
implementing agencies and non-Article 5 parties. India, Malaysia and
Brazil noted the seriousness of the difficulties faced by some Article 5
parties in phasing out CFCs in the manufacture of MDIs, due to the
non-availability of feasible alternatives, while Togo expressed hope that
parties would seriously consider the proposed adjustment of the Montreal
Protocol to address the basic domestic needs of Article 5 parties. Japan
called for closer cooperation to enable Article 5 parties to comply with
their obligations, and reaffirmed its intention to continue assisting with
technology, expertise and funding.

On
methyl bromide, the EU expressed concern over its use for QPS treatments,
while Uganda noted that it was seeking assistance for heat treatment, as
an alternative to methyl bromide, for wood packaging materials used in
export. China noted support for single-year exemptions for CUEs. Mauritius
expressed concern that while developed countries supported the inclusion
of methyl bromide control schedules for Article 5 parties, some are now
themselves falling short of full phase-out. More generally, several
parties, including Tanzania and Uganda, noted the importance of using
incentives to encourage the commercial sector to develop and adopt ODS
alternatives.

Burundi,
China, Dominican Republic, EU, Ghana, Indonesia, Mauritius, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda noted the importance of addressing
illegal trade in ODS, while Pakistan noted that both exporting and
importing countries should institute controls for traded products. Many
delegates expressed support for the development of an international system
to track trade in ODS.

The
EU, Mauritius and Dominican Republic noted concern about the use of CFC
alternatives, including HCFCs, which have high global warming potentials.
China said that the phase-out of HCFCs is different than the phase-out of
other CFCs because HCFCs are used in larger-scale industries and in
products with a wider application where there is greater difficulty in
finding alternatives. The EU, Malaysia, Mauritius, the Philippines, and
Trinidad and Tobago urged synergies with multilateral environmental
agreements (MEAs) on chemicals, waste and climate change.

PRESENTATIONS
BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES: Noting that the
Protocol is a good example for other MEAs and is a cornerstone of the
chemicals agenda, Suely Carvalho, UN Development Programme (UNDP), said
that chemicals hazards pose a particularly large risk to developing
countries. Rajendra Shende, UNEP, gave an overview of UNEP’s
achievements with regard to the Protocol, emphasized the economic and
development advantages of phasing out ODS, and noted the importance of
achieving the Protocol’s remaining tasks. Sidi Menad Si Ahmed, UN
Industrial Development Programme (UNIDO), discussed its efforts to assist
non-Article 5 parties to achieve their phase-out objectives. Steve Gorman,
World Bank, reported that tackling HCFCs and other ODS calls for a multi-sectoral
approach at the national level.

NGO
STATEMENTS: Greenpeace noted its concern
that the Protocol is subject to inordinate influence from multinational
chemical corporations and suggested that this creates an un-level playing
field for non-HCFC alternatives. He emphasized that the TOCs must consist
of independent experts who are not financially connected to the chemical
industry to ensure that ODS alternatives are given a fair hearing. The
Environment Investigation Agency (EIA) said he hoped a decision on the
future of the Protocol would revitalize the instrument and that he was
concerned with the perverse incentives created by the Kyoto Protocol’s
Clean Development Mechanism with regard to HCFC production. The
International Institute of Refrigeration urged greater international
coordination to address issues of ozone depletion and global warming.

MOP-18 OUTCOMES AND
DECISIONS
MOP-18 considered agenda items and related decisions on a variety of
topics, including on: ratification; membership of Protocol bodies in 2007;
budgetary matters; issues arising out of the TEAP's 2006 reports,
including essential uses of CFCs; methyl bromide-related matters; Canada's
proposal to adjust the Montreal Protocol; future challenges to be faced in
protecting the ozone layer over the next decade; and compliance and data
reporting. In total, 37 decisions were adopted. This section summarizes
the negotiations and resulting decisions and outcomes.

MEMBERSHIP
OF PROTOCOL BODIES FOR 2007: In the
preparatory segment on Monday, Co-Chair Yahaya introduced draft decisions
on membership of the ImpCom, the ExCom and the OEWG for 2007 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3,
draft decisions XVIII/CC, XVIII/DD and XVIII/BB). He noted existing
nominations and urged regional groupings to provide the Secretariat with
nominations for outstanding positions. On Friday, Co-Chair Land updated
delegates on nominations for the remaining positions and the preparatory
segment agreed to forward the three draft decisions to the high-level
segment, where they were adopted.

Final
Decisions:In
the decision on ImpCom membership (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1, Decision
XVIII/1), the MOP confirms the positions of Argentina, Lebanon, New
Zealand, Nigeria and Poland for one further year, and selects Bolivia,
Georgia, India, Tunisia and the Netherlands for a two-year period
beginning 1 January 2007. It also notes the selection of a President,
Vice-President and Rapporteur for one year, effective 1 January 2007, with
the names to be inserted at a later date.

In
the decision on ExCom membership, (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1, Decision
XVIII/2), the MOP endorses the selection of Canada, Sweden, Czech
Republic, Japan, the US, Belgium and Italy as non-Article 5 members, and
the selection of Sudan, Guinea, Mexico, Saint Lucia, Uruguay, Jordan and
China as Article 5 members, for one year, effective 1 January 2007. It
also notes the selection of Philippe Chemouny (Canada) as Chair and Nimaga
Mamadou (Guinea) as Vice-Chair of the ExCom for one year, effective 1
January 2007.

In
the decision on OEWG membership (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1, Decision
XVIII/3), the MOP names Marcia Levaggi (Argentina) and Mikkel Sorensen
(Denmark) as Co-Chairs of OEWG for 2007.

Chemicals
Technical Options Committee (CTOC): Co-Chair
Land introduced a draft decision to confirm Biao Jiang (China) as Co-Chair
of CTOC (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1, Decision XVIII/35) to the preparatory
segment on Friday, when it was forwarded to the high-level segment and
adopted.

Final
Decision: In the decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1,
Decision XVIII/35), the MOP names Biao Jiang (China) as a Co-Chair of CTOC.

FINANCIAL
MATTERS: In Monday’s preparatory segment,
parties established a contact group to work on the draft decisions on the
financial reports and proposed 2007-2008 budgets of the Convention and
Protocol Trust Funds (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/4 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/4/Add.1). The
contact group, chaired by Jozef Buys (Belgium), met from Monday through
Wednesday.

In
the contact group, the Secretariat presented a note discussing: budgetary
principles; overview of budgets; performance of the 2005 Protocol and
Convention budgets; proposed changes to the 2007 Protocol budget; overview
of the proposed 2007-2009 Protocol budgets; and review status of the
Protocol Trust Fund. Participants discussed issues, including budget
surplus and possible areas of added costs, arrangements for convening a
meeting on the Canadian proposal regarding the future of the Protocol, and
cash reserve scenarios.

Based
on these discussions, the Secretariat prepared scenarios that contained a
revised contribution table, budgets with different cash reserve scenarios
for 2007-2008, and a draft decision on financial reports and budgets.
After discussion, participants agreed on a budget scenario, which
maintains an 8.3% operating cash reserve for 2007 and 11.3% for 2008, and
on the budget sources for the expenditures of the Protocol’s twentieth
anniversary celebrations. In presenting a report on the draft decisions on
financial reports and budgets on Thursday, Chair Buys noted that there is
a slight increase in party contributions in 2007-2008.

Final
Decision: In the decision on financial
reports and budgets, (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1 Dec XVIII/4), the MOP inter
alia:

•approves the 2007 budget of the Protocol Trust
Fund in the amount of US$4,671,933 and takes note of a budget of
US$4,542,563 for 2008;

•authorizes the Secretariat to draw down
US$395,000 in 2007;

•approves total contributions to be paid by
parties at US$4,276,933 for 2007 and US$4,542,563 in 2008;

•approves the Protocol Trust Fund budget for
the operating cash reserve of 8.3% in 2007, agrees to contribute 3% of
the budget for the cash operating reserve in 2008 and strives to
maintain an operating cash reserve of 15% thereafter;

•allows the Secretariat the flexibility to make
transfers between budget lines as necessary for funding activities to
celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Protocol;

•expresses concern over payment delays in
agreed contributions; and

•requests the Secretariat to inform OEWG-27 on
all sources of income received, and actual and projected expenditures
and commitments.

STATUS
OF RATIFICATIONS: In the preparatory segment on Monday, Co-Chair
Yahaya introduced the draft decision on the status of ratifications of the
ozone instruments (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3, draft
decision XVIII/AA), and congratulated Equatorial Guinea for becoming a
party to the Montreal Protocol. Various
delegates reported on their efforts to ratify the ozone instruments. The
Secretariat noted that it hoped to see universal ratification of the
Protocol in the near future and parties agreed to forward the draft
decision to the high-level segment.

Final
Decision: In the decision on the status
of ratifications of the ozone instruments (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1,
Decision XVIII/5), the MOP notes with satisfaction the large number of
parties that have ratified the instruments and urges all parties to ratify
all instruments.

ISSUES
ARISING OUT OF THE 2006 TEAP REPORTS: Review of essential-use nominations:
Co-Chair Yahaya introduced draft decisions
proposed by the US, the EC and the Russian Federation (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3,
draft decisions XVIII/A, XVIII/B and XVIII/C) in the preparatory segment
on Monday. Informal discussions between the three parties were held
throughout the week. On Wednesday, the US released a draft decision, which
sought to combine the three drafts (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.10). After further
consultations, the three parties agreed to present two draft decisions to
the high-level segment on Friday night, one merging the draft decisions of
the US and the EC (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.19) and one revising the original
decision of the Russian Federation (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.21). These were
adopted.

In
introducing the three original draft decisions, Co-Chair Yahaya explained
that the EC and the US’s decisions concerned their nominations for
essential-use exemptions for CFCs for MDIs for 2007 and 2008 respectively,
which the TEAP had recommended parties approve in its May 2006 progress
report. Co-Chair Yahaya also outlined that the Russian Federation’s
draft decision concerned its nomination for the use of CFC-113 in
aerospace applications for 2007-2010. He explained that, given the date of
submission of this nomination, the TEAP had not been able to fully
consider the request, but that it had suggested the parties might wish to
grant a one-year exemption, on the understanding that the request for
2008-2010 be subjected to a thorough review in 2007.

On
the final draft decision on nominations by the US and the EC, the US
explained that the first two paragraphs represented consensus text from
previous meetings, with the first paragraph authorizing essential uses for
amounts as recommended by the TEAP, taking into account stocks so that no
more than a one-year operational supply is maintained. He also explained
that the third paragraph addressed research into alternatives.

Final
Decisions: In the decision on
essential-use nominations for non-Article 5 parties for 2007 and 2008 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.19),
the MOP:

•authorizes the levels of production and
consumption for 2007 and 2008 necessary to satisfy essential uses of
CFCs for the production of MDIs, as specified in the annex as 535 tonnes
for 2007 for the EC and 385 tonnes for 2008 for the US;

•requests non-Article 5 parties, when
licensing, authorizing or allocating essential-use exemptions for CFCs
for MDIs to take into account pre- and post-1996 CFC stocks, such that
no more than a one-year operational supply is maintained by the
manufacturer; and

•asks non-Article 5 parties to request
companies applying for MDI essential-use exemptions to demonstrate they
are making efforts with all due diligence on research and development of
CFC-free alternatives to their products, and are diligently seeking
approval of their CFC-free alternatives in domestic and export markets
aimed at transitioning those markets away from CFC products.

In
the decision on nomination for an essential-use exemption for CFC-113 for
aerospace applications in the Russian Federation (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.21),
the MOP:

•permits the Russian Federation a level of
production and consumption of 150 metric tonnes of CFC-113 for use in
its aerospace industry in 2007;

•requests the TEAP and its CTOC to complete a
comprehensive assessment of the information made available in the
nomination and, on the basis of any additional relevant information,
taking into account that the information underlying such analysis should
comprehensively address why existing CFC-113 alternatives would not be
applied for the use concerned;

•calls upon the Russian Federation to continue
to cooperate closely with the TEAP and its CTOC in relation to the
present decision and to submit, in accordance with the requirements of
the TEAP and its CTOC, additional technical information on the use of
CFC-113 that may be required;

•requests the TEAP and CTOC to review all
information provided and to present the results to OEWG-27;

•calls upon the Russian Federation to further
consider the use of foreign sources of CFC-113 stockpiles, the
possibility of and a timetable for introducing any new alternatives that
become available, and to continue research and development activities
with a view to finding alternatives;

•calls upon the Russian Federation to provide
to the TEAP, for the purpose of any future nomination of CFC-113 for
aerospace applications, comprehensive information; and

•calls upon the TEAP to take into consideration
the outcome of the continued consultations mentioned above, in reviewing
any additional nomination by the Russian Federation for aerospace
applications for 2008.

Review
of draft terms of reference for case studies on the environmentally sound
destruction of ODS: Co-Chair Land introduced
a draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3, draft decision XVIII/D) in the
preparatory segment on Monday. A contact group was established, chaired by
Patrick McInerney (Australia), which met on Monday and Tuesday. Chair
McInerney introduced revised draft terms of reference, proposed by
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the EU, Japan, Mexico and the US, to
the preparatory segment on Wednesday (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.8). Parties
agreed to forward the draft decision to the high-level segment, where it
was adopted on Friday.

During
discussions in plenary, a number of parties, including the EU, Colombia,
India, Brazil, Mexico and Japan, with support from Canada, suggested that
the ExCom develop consolidated terms of reference, based on the terms of
reference currently being considered by the Multilateral Fund and those
being considered by MOP-18. Contact group discussions developed from this
basis. Participants focused on the need to produce a final report and the
need for the study to commence as soon as possible.

Final
Decision: In the decision on draft terms
of reference for case studies on environmentally sound destruction of ODS
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1, Decision XVIII/7) the MOP:

•requests the ExCom to develop consolidated
terms of reference taking into account the elements referred to in both
the draft terms of reference submitted to MOP-18 and the terms of
reference developed by the Multilateral Fund Secretariat on the disposal
of unwanted ODS; and

•requests the ExCom to conduct, as soon as
possible, a study based on the resulting terms of reference and to
provide a progress report to MOP-19, with a final report for
consideration at OEWG-28.

Report
on activities related to the source of discrepancies between emissions
determined from bottom-up methods and atmospheric measurement: Delegates
took up this issue on Tuesday in the preparatory segment, when TEAP
Co-Chair Lambert Kuijpers (Netherlands) discussed the TEAP’s assessments
of CFCs and HCFCs (requested in Decision XVII/10). He discussed the
methodology used for assessing emissions, and noted that top-down
emissions were susceptible to uncertainty regarding the accuracy of
observations and the ability to assess global changes and removal rates. TEAP Co-Chair Paul Ashford
(UK) discussed the TEAP’s analysis of
top-down information and atmospheric uncertainties, and comparisons
between estimates derived from top-down versus bottom-up information. No
formal decision was adopted on this issue.

Sources
of CTC emissions and opportunities for reductions: During
Tuesday’s preparatory segment, the EC introduced a draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3,
draft decision XVIII/E), with a request to the TEAP to provide more data
on the issue and report to the OEWG. The US said it would suggest some
changes to the EC’s text informally. On Wednesday, the US reported that
agreement was reached on a draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.14), and
parties agreed to forward it to the high-level segment, where it was
adopted on Friday.

Final
Decision: In the decision on sources of
CTC emissions and opportunities for reductions (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1,
Decision XVIII/8), preambular language expresses concern regarding the
large discrepancy in reported emissions and observed atmospheric
concentrations, which indicate emissions from industrial activity are
significantly underestimated. In the operative paragraphs of the decision,
the MOP requests the TEAP to:

•continue its assessment of global CTC
emissions, and to pay particular attention to better data for industrial
emissions, further investigation of issues related to CTC production,
and estimation of emissions from other sources such as landfills; and

•prepare a final report on the assessment in
time for OEWG-27.

Other
issues arising out of the TEAP’s 2006 reports: This
item was introduced in plenary on Monday. On outstanding process agent
requests, Co-Chair Land explained the TEAP found that Brazil’s request did constitute a
process agent use but that it was phased out in 2000, and that Turkey’s
request also constituted a process agent use, to the value of 13 tonnes of
emissions with ODP. Brazil noted it would try to provide additional
information on its phase-out, as there may be some corrections concerning
consumption, given inadequate technical information. Co-Chair Land said
the issue, together with the TEAP’s findings, would be noted in the meeting report.

On
the TEAP’s membership and budget, Co-Chair Land recalled
the TEAP’s request, contained in its May 2006 progress
report, for funding for some travel by non-Article 5 experts in 2007. With
Australia, the US suggested that non-Article 5 parties might expand
efforts to provide support for their experts. Argentina, with Mauritius
and Bolivia, said that the issue is broader than budgetary concerns and
stressed the need for Article 5 expert participation. The TEAP also clarified that the requested funding would
finance travel in extraordinary circumstances where no other sources of
funding are available. No final decision was taken on this issue.

REPORT
OF THE EXPERTS’ MEETING ON THE IPCC/TEAP SPECIAL REPORT: The
report of the Secretariat’s expert workshop on the IPCC/TEAP Special
Report was taken up in the preparatory segment on Monday and Wednesday.
The issue was also addressed in a contact group, chaired by Sophia Mylona
(Norway), which met Tuesday through Thursday. During contact group
discussions, the EU presented a draft decision on future work following
from the experts’ workshop (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.5) and Argentina
submitted a draft decision on implications of the establishment of new
HCFC-22 facilities seeking to obtain certified emissions reductions for
the destruction of HFC-23 under the Clean Development Mechanism (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.4).
A revised draft decision combining components of the EU’s and
Argentina’s draft decisions was presented to the preparatory segment on
Thursday, and was adopted in the high-level segment on Friday.

During
discussions, the EU, noting the need to consider the relative urgency of
the measures in the Special Report, said it was developing a draft
decision. The US, supported by India, stated that prioritization of the
measures was likely to be party-specific. Argentina emphasized the
importance of HCFCs and the incentives created by the Kyoto Protocol’s
Clean Development Mechanism, and said it was drafting a related decision.
The EIA emphasized that the global warming potential of HCFCs and HFCs
could rival the total greenhouse gas emissions of the EU by 2015 and, with
Greenpeace, urged a fully-funded accelerated phase-out.

The
discussion in the contact group revealed extensive differences between the
two approaches, as reflected in the draft decisions of the EU and
Argentina. While the EU text requested the TEAP to assess and prioritize
practical measures listed in Annex 1 of the report of the experts’
workshop on the IPCC/TEAP Special Report, Argentina’s draft addressed
the prospect of higher global production of HCFC-22, which would
significantly impact on the objectives of the Montreal Protocol. The
authors of the latter proposal argued that there is a potential for an
accelerated shift in HCFC-22 production from non-Article 5 to Article 5
parties. They pointed to downward pressure on HCFC-22 prices, and lack of
incentives to develop new technologies to replace HCFC-22.

Several
participants supported Argentina’s proposal, noting that it highlighted
an urgent problem. China objected to the proposal, saying that it
duplicates the expected discussion of HCFC-22 at the upcoming UNFCCC
COP-12 and Kyoto Protocol COP/MOP-2, and there is no ground for involving
the CDM. The discussion in the contact group mainly revolved around these
issues, but parties managed to reach compromise by incorporating the main
elements of Argentina’s proposal in a revised EU text.

Final
Decision:In the
decision on future work following the Secretariat’s workshop on the IPCC/TEAP
Special Report (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.2, Decision XVIII/10), preambular
language expresses concern that better scientific understanding now
suggests a 10-15 year delay in the return of atmospheric chlorine levels
to pre-1980 levels, and notes parties’ awareness of the potential
implications of Clean Development Mechanism projects in HCFC-22 production
facilities. In the operative paragraphs of the decision, the MOP requests:

•the TEAP to further assess measures listed in
the workshop report, in light of trends in ODS production and
consumption with a focus on HCFCs, taking into account timing,
feasibility and environmental benefits;

•the TEAP to provide information on current and
future demand and supply of HCFCs, giving full consideration to the
influence of the CDM on HCFC-22 production, and on the availability of
alternatives;

•the Secretariat to facilitate consultations
between the TEAP, the UNFCCC Secretariat, the Clean Development
Mechanism Executive Board and the Multilateral Fund Secretariat; and

•the TEAP to report its findings to OEWG-27,
with a view to providing a final report at MOP-19.

METHYL
BROMIDE-RELATED ISSUES: Review of CUNs: The
issue was taken up in Tuesday’s preparatory segment, when the MBTOC
Co-Chairs Mohammed Besri (Morocco), Ian Porter (Australia), Michelle
Marcotte (Canada) and Marta Pizano (Colombia) presented an overview of
MBTOC’s review of CUNs, as well as MBTOC’s work plan and timetable.
CUNs were then discussed in a contact group, chaired by Pierre Pinault
(Canada), from Tuesday through Friday. On Friday, Chair Pinault presented
a draft decision in the high-level segment (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.20), where
it was adopted with minor editorial amendments.

The
main topics of discussion were treatment of stockpiles in relation to CUEs,
and issues with MBTOC’s recommendations.

During
discussions on stocks, the US discussed the information it recently
released on its stocks, emphasized its consideration of stocks in its
domestic allocation processes, and said that stocks were needed: to ensure
a smooth and timely distribution of material; to meet export needs, and as
a safety net in the event of a catastrophic event or a plant failure. The
EC, Switzerland and the US emphasized the importance of reaching a
decision at MOP-18 on the treatment of stockpiles. The EC, Switzerland,
the EIA and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted unease over
US stockpiles. The EC said it is the responsibility of the parties to take
account of these stocks when considering CUNs in order to be in full
accordance with Decision IX/6 which, inter alia, calls for parties
to consider stocks in allocating CUEs. NRDC further said that the sale of
methyl bromide stocks to users that do not hold CUEs contravenes Article
2H of the Protocol (methyl bromide). Non-Article 5 parties also discussed
the size of stockpiles needed, with one non-Article 5 party specifying
that available stock information reflects stocks existing prior to 2005,
and others expressing concern about stocks constituting CUE loopholes.

In
deciding how to treat stocks, some non-Article 5 parties sought clarity
regarding: the differentiation between operational stockpiles for
feedstock and QPS uses, and pre-2005 stocks; the meaning of stocks; and
categories of use of the quantities drawn from stocks in the past. In
order to better understand these matters, some non-Article 5 parties
suggested a study on stocks to clarify this. However, no such study was
included in the final decision.

Various
ideas regarding how to treat stocks were put forward
(UNEP.OzL.Pro.18/CRP.7 and UNEP.OzL.Pro.18/CRP.9). The US pointed to prior
precedent in how the parties dealt with CFC stocks and essential-use
exemptions. In contrast, Switzerland said this precedent was not relevant
to methyl bromide. He said that in the case of essential uses, the
required CFCs are unique in that they need to be of a pharmaceutical
grade, but for methyl bromide, adequate quantities are available given
that feedstock use of methyl bromide will continue and that all uses,
including feedstocks, can be drawn from the same stocks. An EU proposal
called for stocks to be less than 25% of the quantity allowed for CUEs and
for new production for CUEs to be contingent on a lack of availability of
stocks. In contrast, text proposed by the US limited stocks to a one-year
operational supply and called for CUEs to be contingent on party-specific,
as opposed to regional, National Management Strategies (NMSs). In the
accepted compromise, the parties did not impose caps on stocks, but called
for the TEAP to report on stocks held by each nominating party and renewed
parties’ commitment to allocate methyl bromide for critical uses only if
sufficient stocks are unavailable.

Parties’
general views on CUEs and the role of MBTOC varied. A few non-Article 5
parties said that MBTOC was only advisory in nature, and thus that parties
could question their recommendations. Others disagreed, saying the parties
were in no position to question the technical bodies’ recommendations.
The EC, with Chile, said that accepting MBTOC’s recommended CUE
quantities sends an important signal to Article 5 parties, and Switzerland
said doing so is a matter of principle.

Parties’
views on MBTOC’s recommendations regarding the quantity of CUEs to grant
for specific categories of use in specific countries for 2008 and the
supplemental amounts to approve for 2007 also varied. The EC said that
MBTOC’s recommendations for its member states were acceptable despite
some significant reductions in the nominated quantities recommended by
MBTOC. Chile said MBTOC’s recommendations should be adopted without
amendment and Switzerland questioned why some countries were transitioning
to alternatives at a much higher rate than others. In contrast, Australia,
the US, New Zealand and Israel challenged specific MBTOC recommendations.
Australia noted the need for better information-sharing between MBTOC and
nominating parties.

The
US criticized MBTOC’s recommendations on its CUNs more broadly, saying
that the MBTOC had gone beyond its mandate in substituting its judgment
for that of the nominating parties, and was not following the agreed
procedures of review. Saying that MBTOC had not considered the specific
circumstances of each CUN, he questioned the basis of MBTOC’s
across-the-board imposition of 25% transition rates, the “usage” rates
assumed in the report, and how MBTOC’s determined alternatives were
economically feasible. In the final decision, all of the parties
challenging MBTOC recommendations were granted quantities exceeding, for
some categories of use, MBTOC’s recommendations. The justifications for
the discrepancy from the quantities recommended by MBTOC varied, ranging
from technical errors, to the divulgence of new relevant information, to
negotiated compromise.

Final
Decision: In the decision on CUEs (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.20),
the MOP, inter alia:

•permits levels of production and consumption
for the agreed CUE categories for 2008 and supplemental levels for 2007;

•calls for the TEAP to take “information on
domestic implementation” for related 2007 and 2008 critical uses into
account when assessing supplemental CUNs for 2008;

•calls for parties to “endeavor” to
allocate critical uses as agreed in the annex to the decision (listing
the supplemental CUE quantities for 2007 and the CUE quantities for
2008) and to use stocks to make up differences between CUE levels and
permitted levels of production and consumption for critical uses;

•calls for parties to renew their commitment to
the portion of Decision IX/6 (on CUEs) that says that “critical uses
… should be permitted only if …” sufficient stocks are
unavailable, and requests parties to report on implementation of this;
and

•calls on the TEAP to publish annually the
stocks of methyl bromide held by parties requesting CUEs.

Report
on possible need for CUEs over the next few years: In
Tuesday’s preparatory segment, Co-Chair Yahaya introduced the issue of
the TEAP’s report on the possible need for CUEs over the next few years,
based on a review of six NMSs (Decision Ex.I/4). Switzerland expressed
doubt about the value of NMSs that offer practically no reductions over
time. Canada explained that NMS forecasts are affected by uncertainty as
to future methyl bromide alternatives. The US said its NMS identifies
policies and specific sectors where methyl bromide reductions are
anticipated. The EC emphasized that its NMS reflects current trends.
Co-Chair Yahaya said the issue would be forwarded to the methyl bromide
contact group. (See the summary of discussions above.)

Final
Decision: In the decision on CUEs (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.20),
preambular language notes that parties submitting requests for methyl
bromide for 2007 have supported their request with a management strategy
as required under Decision Ex.I/4.

QPS
matters: In the preparatory segment on
Tuesday, the EC introduced a draft decision on cooperation with the
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) on the use of
alternatives to QPS uses of methyl bromide (UNEP OzL.Pro.18/3/Add.1), with
Co-Chair Land suggesting that a “subgroup” meet to discuss the issue.
A “non-group” was established, chaired by Philippe Tulkens (EC), which
met from Tuesday through Thursday. Chair Tulkens introduced a revised text
to the preparatory segment on Friday, (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.5), which was
adopted during the high-level segment later that day.

During
discussions, the US, supported by Australia, and New Zealand, questioned
the broad scope of the original draft decision, while Switzerland and the
EIA expressed hope that the decision would be adopted. These discussions
carried over into the “non-group.”

“Non-group”
participants also considered language requesting the TEAP to seek
cooperation, with some participants preferring a more general request and
another participant preferring to prescribe the scope of cooperation more
specifically. Contact group participants finally reached agreement on a
synthesized text provided by Chair Tulkens, which included additional
paragraphs requesting the TEAP, to inter alia, assist the QPS Task
Force in reporting on methyl bromide use for QPS by combining data sets
available to each body, and by providing technical guidance on
technologies aimed at minimizing emissions from methyl bromide.

Final
Decision: In the decision on cooperation
between the Montreal Protocol and IPPC on alternatives to QPS uses of
methyl bromide (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1, Decision XVIII/12), the MOP:

•welcomes proposals by the IPPC’s Technical
Panel on Forestry Quarantine for closer cooperation between IPPC and
Protocol technical bodies;

•requests the TEAP to cooperate with the
technical bodies of the IPPC with a view to ensuring that potentially
duplicative activities are coordinated where practical;

•requests the TEAP to report on the results of
its contacts and work by OEWG-27;

•requests the Secretariat to provide factual
information on the definitions of QPS under the Protocol and the IPPC;
and

•encourages national level officials working on
the Protocol and the IPPC to cooperate more closely to ensure that the
objectives of both agreements are met when domestic actions are
undertaken in relation to QPS uses of methyl bromide.

Multi-year
exemptions: In introducing the US’s draft
decision on criteria for approving multi-year exemptions for CUEs (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3,
draft decision XVIII/G) during Tuesday’s preparatory segment, Co-Chair
Yahaya recalled that the issue had been discussed in previous years and
that, due to the busy agenda at MOP-17, parties had agreed to postpone the
item until MOP-18.

The
US highlighted advantages of a multi-year approach to exemptions,
including increased certainty for the producers of methyl bromide and its
alternatives, and reduced workloads for Protocol bodies. He also noted
intersessional comments from Australia concerning the possibility of an
annual reporting framework within a multi-year approach. In response,
Cuba, the EC,
Mexico and Switzerland suggested postponement of the issue, with the EC
suggesting a multi-year approach might send the wrong signal at a time
when parties are striving for complete phase-out. Canada noted that the
US’s proposal does have some merit, particularly for certain uses, and
that such an approach would save parties from having to reconsider the
same exemptions annually where no alternatives are available. Parties
agreed to defer consideration of the issue until OEWG-27.

Options
for preventing potential harmful trade: Co-Chair
Land introduced the TEAP’s report on this matter (Decision Ex.I/4).
After a brief discussion, parties agreed to defer consideration of the
matter until OEWG-27.

Laboratory
and analytical uses: This issue was first
considered in the preparatory segment on Tuesday, when Norway introduced a
draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3/Add.2). After bilateral discussions with
CTOC, Norway submitted a revised draft decision to the preparatory segment
on Thursday (UNEP/Oz.L.Pro.18/CRP.12), which parties agreed to forward to
the high-level segment, where it was adopted on Friday, with a minor
amendment to reorder the categories of laboratory and analytical critical
uses of methyl bromide..

Providing
background information to Norway’s proposal, Co-Chair Yahaya drew
attention to the provisions in the TEAP’s report relating to existing
categories and criteria for laboratory and analytical critical uses of
methyl bromide (as requested in Decision XVII/10). Noting the TEAP’s
inability to find replacements to methyl bromide use in laboratory and
analytical work, Norway explained that its draft decision specifies a
number of categories of laboratory and analytical methyl bromide use.

Final
Decision: In the decision on laboratory
and analytical critical uses of methyl bromide (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1,
Dec XVIII/13), the MOP:

•notes with appreciation the work of CTOC and
MBTOC in considering the relevance of categories of use listed in Annex
IV to the report of MOP-7 to laboratory and analytical critical uses of
methyl bromide;

•notes that the aforementioned committees do
not favor classifying field trials as laboratory and analytical critical
uses, and that parties carrying out such field trials using methyl
bromide for laboratory and analytical critical uses could submit a CUN;

•recognizes that some laboratory and analytical
critical uses listed in the committee’s reports are applicable to both
QPS and feedstock uses; and

•authorizes methyl bromide production and
consumption as necessary to satisfy laboratory and analytical critical
uses, given that, inter alia: methyl bromide is only used as a
reference to calibrate equipment using methyl bromide, methyl bromide
emissions levels are monitored, methyl bromide residue levels are
determined, and the efficacy of methyl bromide and its alternatives for
laboratory and feedstock uses is compared.

Australia’s
emergency use: On Tuesday, Executive
Secretary Gonzalez reported on receipt of notification of an emergency use
of methyl bromide by Australia for non-QPS post-harvest fumigation of
rice. On Thursday, Executive Secretary Gonzalez noted that following
bilateral consultations with Australia, MBTOC found that the use was
justified.

DIFFICULTIES
FACED BY SOME ARTICLE 5 PARTIES MANUFACTURING CFC-BASED MDIs:
On Monday, Co-Chair Yahaya recalled Decision XVII/14 relating to the
difficulties faced by some Article 5 parties manufacturing MDIs using
CFCs, and the draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3, Draft Decision XVIII/F)
furthering this theme in the preparatory segment. A contact group was
formed, chaired by Agustín Sánchez (Mexico), which met from Monday
through Thursday. The draft decision was forwarded to the high-level
segment on Thursday and adopted on Friday.

In
discussions, many participants highlighted problems such as lack of
affordable alternatives in phasing out CFCs in MDIs and the burden implied
if non-CFC-based MDIs are imported. A number of participants requested
financial and technical assistance for the phase-out, while one
participant highlighted the need for closer cooperation and partnerships
for technology transfer.

In
contact group discussions, participants stressed the importance of
considering the decision from a public health perspective and discussed
issues relating to submission of an export manufacturing transition plan
for CFC-based MDI manufacturers. A draft decision was prepared based on
the contact group discussions (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.16).

Final
Decision: In the decision on
difficulties faced by some Article 5 parties manufacturing CFC-based MDIs
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1, Decision XVIII/14), the MOP:

•recognizes the potential uncertainties of
availability of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs in the near future and its
impacts on health and local businesses who depend on its import;

•notes understanding of the need for further
measures to facilitate transition to non-CFC treatments of asthma and
obstructive pulmonary measure diseases in Article 5 parties;

•notes that non-Article 5 parties have made
substantial progress in replacing CFC-based MDIs with alternatives but
still require a limited amount of CFCs to produce MDIs;

•requests the ImpCom to consider options for
addressing potential non-compliance difficulties of Article 5 parties
due to consumption of CFC-based MDIs;

•requests non-Article 5 parties manufacturing
MDIs for export to provide a detailed export manufacturing transition
plan to the importing parties where the exports of an active ingredient
to an individual party exceeds 10 metric tonnes, and to submit reports
on these activities as part of the essential-use nominations; and

•requests the TEAP to report progress to
OEWG-27 and MOP-19 on recommended quantities for a limited campaign
production of CFCs for MDIs for both Article 5 and non-Article 5
parties.

STOCKPILED
ODS RELATIVE TO COMPLIANCE: This item was
discussed in the preparatory segment on Monday and Thursday and in a
contact group on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. On Thursday, parties
agreed to forward a revised draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.13) to the
high-level segment, where it was adopted on Friday.

In
introducing the issue to plenary, Co-Chair Yahaya recalled that in 2005,
the ImpCom had discussed scenarios in which parties had stockpiled ODS,
taking as its starting point an analysis prepared by the Secretariat (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/7,
Annex). He also explained that the matter was discussed in a contact group
at OEWG-26, chaired by Maas Goote (Netherlands). Goote then suggested that
the three proposed options for dealing with cases of possible
non-compliance that had been discussed at OEWG-26 could be the starting
point for discussions at MOP-18.

Contact
group discussions addressed potential inconsistencies with the data
reporting requirements contained in Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol,
some participants’ concerns with broadening the definition of
“production” contained in Article 1 of Protocol, and the unknown scope
of the problem of stockpiles in the context of compliance. Participants
also discussed the necessity of wording regarding possible future
stockpile scenarios relative to compliance, and a paragraph was added to
the draft decision to specify that the ImpCom would address such cases
within the established non-compliance procedures.

Final
Decision: In the decision on the
treatment of stockpiled ODS relative to compliance (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1,
Decision XVIII/15), the MOP:

•notes that the Secretariat had reported that
parties that had exceeded the allowed level of production or consumption
of a particular ODS in a given year had, in some cases, explained that
their excess production or consumption represented one of four
scenarios, which are listed in the decision;

•requests the Secretariat to maintain a
consolidated record of the cases where the parties have explained that
their situations were the consequence of the three possible
non-compliance scenarios, and incorporate this record in the
documentation of the ImpCom for information purposes only;

•recognizes that new scenarios not covered by
the four scenarios listed in the decision will be addressed by the
ImpCom in accordance with the non-compliance procedure of the Protocol
and the established practice thereunder; and

•agrees to revisit the issue at MOP-21, with a
view to considering further action.

FEASIBILITY
STUDY ON DEVELOPING A SYSTEM FOR MONITORING THE TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF
ODS: A feasibility study on developing a
system for monitoring the transboundary movement of ODS (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/6)
was considered in the preparatory segment on Monday, when the EC submitted
a draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.3). The EC, Mexico and New Zealand
submitted a revised draft decision to the preparatory segment on Wednesday
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP3.Rev.1), when it was forwarded to the high-level
segment, and adopted on Friday. The issue was also discussed in a contact
group on Wednesday and Thursday.

In
plenary, the study was first summarized by some of its authors, Duncan
Brack (Chatham
House), Ezra Clark (EIA)
and Alexander von Bismarck (EIA). Many parties then acknowledged the importance of
addressing illegal transboundary trade in ODS, and described national
efforts to address the issue.

In
the contact group, the main point of discussion was whether the
Secretariat should assess the suitability of the UN commodity trade
statistics database (UNComTrade), or whether more options should also be
assessed. This issue was resolved by calling on member states to share
their experiences in using the Global Risk Identification and Detection
software (eGRID) and UNComTrade. In addition, Burkina Faso lobbied for
language calling for the exchange of information between Article 5 and
non-Article 5 parties

Final
Decision: In the final decision on
preventing illegal trade in ODS through systems for monitoring
transboundary movement (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1, Decision XVIII/16), the
MOP:

•urges parties to implement Article 4B (control
of trade with parties) and decisions related to trade;

•encourages parties to consider actions to
improve ODS monitoring and to share information between Article 5 and
non-Article 5 parties; and

•encourages parties to share their experience
using UNComtrade and eGRID.

DISCLOSURE
OF INTEREST GUIDELINES FOR GROUPS SUCH AS THE TEAP AND ITS TOCs: On
Monday Co-Chair Land introduced a note by the Secretariat on issues for
the attention of the MOP (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/2), explaining that Canada
proposed guidelines for disclosure of interests at MOP-17 and that parties
had agreed to defer the matter until MOP-18. He also introduced a revised
proposal on disclosure of interest guidelines from Canada (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3/Add.3). A
contact group, chaired by Paul Krajnik
(Austria), then met from
Monday through Thursday, when a revised draft decision was introduced in
the preparatory segment (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.15). Parties agreed to
forward the draft decision to the high-level segment, where it was adopted
on Friday.

Contact
group discussions centered on the necessity and scope of the proposed
illustrative list of interests, with some participants preferring a more
extensive list and others suggesting that such a list might preclude a
large number of existing TEAP members from certain assessment activities.
Participants also discussed the form for disclosure of interests and the
possibility of a distinction between “real” and “potential”
conflicts of interest. Participants also debated whether to specify how
the TEAP should respond to conflicts of interest, with some finding
specification limiting and others preferring such an approach as it was
considered more objective than the current one. The final version of the
draft decision was based on the existing code of conduct for the TEAP, its TOCs and temporary subsidiary bodies, but with:
greater elaboration of conflicts of interest and actions to mitigate
conflicts; a requirement for the TEAP to publish annual
reports and descriptions of financial and other relevant interests; and an
annex containing an illustrative list of types of interests that should be
disclosed.

Final
Decision: In the decision on disclosure
of interest guidelines for bodies such as the TEAP and its TOCs (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1,
Decision XVIII/17), the MOP decides to update text in the existing code of
conduct for the TEAP, its TOCs and temporary subsidiary bodies, with text
that provides that:

•members of these bodies shall annually
disclose activities including business, government or financial
interests in the production of ODS, their alternatives, and products
containing ODS or their alternatives, which might call into question
their ability to discharge their duties and responsibilities
objectively;

•members of the TEAP, its TOCs and temporary
subsidiary bodies must also disclose any financing, from a company
engaged in commercial activities, for their participation in these
bodies;

•a conflict of interest would only arise when
an interest of a member, or his or her personal partner or dependant,
would influence the expert’s work;

•should there be a likely conflict of interest,
a member shall take appropriate action, including seeking the advice of
the Co-Chair or not participating in the determination of an issue
either fully or in part;

•the Co-Chairs shall seek to avoid conflicts of
interest, which could include requesting a member to take appropriate
action, such as requesting a member to take no role or a restricted role
in the determination of an item;

•in the case of a serious conflict of interest,
where a member has been nominated by a party, that party shall be
advised by the Co-Chair(s) of the conflict at the earliest opportunity;

•cases of conflicts or likely conflicts arising
from the Co-Chairs should be raised with the President of the MOP; and

•the TEAP shall report annually on the relevant
interests, and the resolution of any conflicts or likely conflicts.

The
decision also contains an annex with an illustrative list of interests for
the guidance of members of the TEAP, its TOCs and temporary subsidiary
bodies.

KEY
CHALLENGES TO BE FACED BY THE PARTIES IN PROTECTING THE OZONE LAYER OVER
THE NEXT DECADE: This item, originally
proposed by Canada (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3, draft decision XVIII/H), was
addressed in the preparatory segment on Monday. Canada noted
intersessional responses to the proposal from other parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/INF/5),
and a contact group was established, co-chaired by Philippe Chemouny
(Canada) and Marcia Levaggi (Argentina), which met from Tuesday through
Friday. During contact group deliberations, participants discussed two
revised “non-papers” proposed by the contact group Co-Chairs. A final
draft decision was introduced to the preparatory segment on Friday (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1,
Decision XVIII/34), when it was adopted during the high-level segment.

During
plenary discussions, the EU, Argentina, Japan, Fiji, the US, China, New
Zealand, India, Norway and others welcomed the Canadian proposal.
Delegates registered general agreement on the timeliness of launching a
review process on the future of the Montreal Protocol and its
institutions, and on the early setting of an agenda for future
discussions. Several ideas were put forward on the substance of the future
review process, with parties focusing on the need to explore a number of
key categories of issues, among them the future of the Multilateral Fund,
HCFCs, methyl bromide, compliance, and synergies with other MEAs. Support
was expressed for holding a two-day workshop or “dialogue,”
back-to-back with OEWG-27. The contact group debated the arrangements and
agenda for the dialogue, the prospective participants, and the content of
the background document.

Differences
emerged on some aspects of the draft decision, including on the need for
indicating that the review process is initiated to develop long-term
strategic planning of the ozone regime. This language was eventually
removed. Parties debated the participation of other MEA Secretariats.
Other issues concerned the exact wording of the seven broad categories
proposed for discussion at the dialogue, including volumes of ODS phased
out and/or produced per substance and per category of parties. The latter
category was the last to be resolved, when “produced” was replaced
with “phased-in.”

Final
Decision:In
the decision on dialogue on key future challenges to be faced by the
Montreal Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Pro/L.2/Rev.1, Decision XVIII/34), the MOP
decides:

•to convene a two-day open-ended dialogue
immediately preceding OEWG-27, with the participation of the Assessment
Panels, the Ozone Secretariat, the Multilateral Fund Secretariat and the
implementing agencies, and with relevant MEAs and NGOs as observers;

•to request the Ozone Secretariat to prepare by
30 April 2007, a background document, containing: a summary of key
achievements of the Protocol and lessons learned; volumes of ODS phased
out and phased in, including feedstocks, by substance and by category of
parties; forecasts of future trends in production and consumption and
emissions from ODS banks; compilation of submissions by parties; factual
information on agenda topics; data on ODS phased out and phased in under
Multilateral Fund projects; and an overview of the current and future
state of the ozone layer;

•that the summary of key issues arising from
the dialogue will be presented to OEWG-27; and

•that Khaled Klaly (Syria) and Tom Land (US)
are to be Co-Chairs of the dialogue.

An
annex to the decision contains the following key items for discussion:

•key achievements of the Protocol;

•scientific assessment, analysis and monitoring
of the ozone layer;

•phasing out HCFCs;

•management, control and/or phase-out of ODS
other than HCFCs;

•compliance, enforcement and illegal trade
beyond 2010;

•cooperation and coordination with other MEAs
and processes; and

•future of the Multilateral Fund beyond 2010.

COMPLIANCE
AND REPORTING ISSUES: This item was
considered in the preparatory segment on Wednesday. The parties agreed to
forward a bundle of draft decisions on non-compliance (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.1),
as amended to exclude Tanzania, to the high-level segment.

ImpCom President Mikheil
Tushishvili (Georgia) presented a summary of ImpCom’s thirty-sixth and
thirty-seventh meetings (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/36/7). He discussed key items
including: progress on data reporting by most parties; clarification of deviations in data; Bangladesh’s notification of
non-compliance (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/INF/10/Add.1); and approval and monitoring
of compliance plans of action.

Concerning
reporting on very small (de minimis) quantities of ODS, ImpCom President Tushishvili explained that the
Protocol provides no guidance. Noting possible approaches proposed by the Secretariat (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/INF/7,
Annex II), he said ImpCom recommended a
combination approach, and invited the MOP to decide
whether to set a de minimis level. The EU suggested
deferring the issue until OEWG-27 and inviting submissions on the Secretariat’s
proposed approaches by March 2007 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.6), while the US,
with Australia, supported a return to the historical practice of reporting
data to one decimal place. The EU
said it could accept reporting to one decimal place and that it would
withdraw its draft decision. The Secretariat said it would take note of
parties’ comments.

Final
Decisions: The MOP adopted 14 decisions
on non-compliance and data reporting (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1, Decisions
XVIII/18-33). The decisions note non-compliance by Armenia, the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Dominica, Ecuador, Greece, Kenya, Pakistan, Paraguay
and Serbia, and potential non-compliance by the Islamic Republic of Iran
and Eritrea. Additional decisions relate to: a change in baseline data,
and revised plans of action on certain ODS.

ADJUSTMENT
OF THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL: This item was
discussed in the preparatory segment on Monday, when a contact group was
formed, chaired by Laura Berón (Argentina), which met from Monday through
Friday. During Friday’s preparatory segment, Chair Berón reported on
contact group discussions and explained that participants had decided not
to submit a draft decision.

In
plenary, Co-Chair Land recalled the discussion at OEWG-26 on the Canadian
proposal to adjust the Protocol’s provision concerning production of
CFCs to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5 parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/3,
Chapter II). Participants highlighted the importance of information on
determining the size of Article 5 party needs and for affordable
pharmaceutical-grade CFCs for MDIs in Article 5 parties.

In
the contact group, participants discussed CFC production figures for
non-Article 5 parties for meeting basic domestic needs of Article 5
parties in 2008-2009. Participants considered statistics regarding maximum
quantities for CFC production for meeting basic domestic needs based on an
EU informal paper. The group also considered a draft proposal by Canada,
which suggested introducing a limit of 10% of 1995-1997 production levels
for CFC production to meet basic domestic needs. Some participants
expressed concern regarding the effects of mandatory caps on products
other than pharmaceuticals and on the MDI sectors in Article 5 parties,
and suggested using a voluntary limit. After some debate, participants
agreed on Thursday to produce a report to reflect contact group
discussions, rather than a draft decision.

After
more deliberations, Chair Berón provided a report to the plenary on
Friday, noting that the group recognized that while it would be possible
to reduce production for basic domestic needs further, it was important to
continue to ensure an adequate supply of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs for
MDIs. Instead of adjusting the Protocol, parties agreed to endorse the
conclusions of the contact group, noting that non-Article 5 parties need
to ensure an accelerated phase-out of their production for basic domestic
needs. The meeting also agreed to note that through voluntary initiatives,
total annual production of CFCs to meet the basic domestic needs of
Article 5 parties are estimated to be approximately 2000 ODP-tonnes in
2007 and 1500 ODP-tonnes in 2008 and in 2009.

OTHER
MATTERS: N-propyl bromide: This item was
discussed in the preparatory segment on Tuesday and Wednesday. In tabling
a draft decision proposed by the EC and Norway during Tuesday’s
preparatory segment (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.2), the EC noted n-propyl bromide
(NPB) is not yet controlled under the Montreal Protocol, and,
supported by Switzerland, noted its concern with the increasing use of n-propyl
bromide. She suggested that the TEAP obtain more
information on NPB and assess global emissions. After informal
consultations with the US, the EC submitted a revised draft decision to
the preparatory segment on Wednesday (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/CRP.2/Rev.1), which
parties agreed to forward to the high-level segment, where it was adopted
on Friday.

Final
Decision:In
the decision on n-propyl bromide (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1 Decision
XVIII/9), the MOP requests:

•the SAP to update and publish by OEWG-27
information on the emissions and ODP of n-propyl bromide, including how
ODP varies with location and season; and

•the SAP to pay particular attention to
improving the data on production and uses and providing information on
the availability, ODP and toxicity of alternatives, as well as on
regulations affecting them.

Cooperation
with the International Civil Aviation Organization: Recalling
the work undertaken by the Halons Technical Options Committee with ICAO,
the US requested the Secretariat to facilitate
further collaboration by working with the ICAO Secretariat. Parties agreed
to take note of the intervention and agreed to consider the issue at a
future date.

2008
Beijing Olympic Games: China presented on
the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games,
explaining the steps being undertaking by the government to incorporate a
“green concept” into the Games. She noted that mainstreaming ozone
protection was a major theme.

DATES
AND VENUE FOR MOP-19: In the preparatory
segment on Monday, and in the high-level segment on Friday, Canada noted
its willingness to host MOP-19, which will take place in the year of
twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Protocol. Parties adopted a
decision during the high-level segment on Friday.

Final
Decision: In the decision on MOP-19 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.2/Rev.1,
Decision XVIII/36), the MOP agrees to convene MOP-19 in Montreal, Canada,
from 17-21 September 2007.

CLOSING PLENARY
The closing plenary was held on Friday evening. Delegates adopted the
meeting report with minor textual amendments (UNEP/OzL.Pro.18/L.1, Add.1,
Add.2, and Add.3). Delegates then adopted most decisions, before breaking
at 5:55 pm to await revised draft decisions on essential- and critical-use
nominations. After plenary reconvened at 9:20 pm, these were also adopted,
with the EU, the US and the Russian Federation making brief comments to
explain the final text of the decisions and to thank those involved in
negotiating them. Parties also adopted the decision on dates and venue for
MOP-19. MOP-18 President Mulungula thanked delegates, the Secretariat and
others for their hard work, and India for hosting the meeting, and gaveled
the meeting to a close at 9:54 pm.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF MOP-18

The eighteenth Meeting of
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer (MOP-18) opened with one the heaviest agenda in years, with items
ranging from critical-use nominations and exemptions for methyl bromide,
to the difficulties faced by developing country (Article 5) parties in
transitioning to CFC-free metered-dose inhalers (MDIs), to disclosure of
interest guidelines for members of the TEAP and its committees, to cases
of non-compliance, and finally, to future challenges facing parties in
protecting the ozone layer. The more controversial items provoked
protracted discussion in a multitude of contact groups and informal
"non-groups." As the stacks of documents steadily piled up on
delegates' desks, they practically obscured the stark fact that MOP-18 was
opening the gateway to the Montreal Protocol's future. A disturbing
background to the meeting was provided by reports that the largest ever
recorded hole in the ozone layer was observed this fall, and that the rosy
scientific predictions for the ozone layer's restoration are off the mark
by ten or fifteen years.

This
brief analysis considers some of the main issues addressed at MOP-18, and
what the outcomes suggest about the vitality of the Montreal Protocol on
the eve of its 20th anniversary.

THE ASCENT
Delegates arrived in New Delhi prepared to tackle a large number of
complicated agenda items in an evident spirit of compromise. The three
dozen decisions passed unanimously were, to many, a refreshing
demonstration of the maturity of the Protocol.

The
issues receiving prime consideration at MOP-18 served as markers for this
MOP’s place in the Protocol’s lifespan. Some perennial issues, such as
methyl bromide critical use nominations and CFC-free MDI’s, were as
visible as ever. In light of the fast approaching 2010 phase-out of many
ODS in Article 5 parties, discussions gravitated towards the feasibility
of this deadline, especially related to CFC-free MDIs. For some developing
country participants, the difficulty of accessing technologies needed to
produce CFC-free MDIs is a major concern, since failure to adopt
alternative technologies means risking non-compliance. Lack of technology
transfer was an often-heard complaint. The situation moved one participant
to evoke the current options as “either the devil, or the deep blue
sea.” While the Multilateral Fund exists to assist Article 5 parties in
the conversion process, this did not appear to quell the fears of many
parties. And some non-Article 5 (developed country) parties noted that
while these concerns are legitimate, they should not be overblown, since
the transition is merely an issue of time. Interestingly, doctors in India
are acting as ozone educators, as they urge patients to transfer to
costlier CFC-free MDIs, arguing that these inhalers address both personal
and environmental health.

At
the other end of the phase-out schedule are the non-Article 5 parties that
seem to cling to their methyl bromide addiction. Though still a
contentious issue, critical-use nominations from parties did not spark an
acrimonious debate at this year’s meeting, since many controversies were
cleared up in bilateral consultations between the parties and MBTOC.

Several
participants questioned the example that the “methyl bromide guzzlers”
are setting for developing countries, which are working towards a
phase-out. Grumblings were heard that the entrenched interests of some
major members of the Protocol may impact on the attitude of Article 5
members, which may affect the integrity of the ozone regime as a whole.

APPROACHING THE
PEAK
The Canadian initiative to hold a workshop to discuss the key challenges
in protecting the ozone layer over the next decade emerged as a primary
interest for many MOP-18 delegates, despite their daily need to grapple
with more immediate and troublesome issues. A proposal on the matter was
first discussed at OEWG-26, and burgeoned at MOP-18. Clearly, the two-day
workshop (later rechristened the "dialogue") planned to take
place just before next year's OEWG-27, will not be an ordinary seminar. In
a surprising show of unanimity, the parties captured in the dialogue's
agenda the seven crucial issues whose discussion will likely shape the
next era of ozone protection. Among these, in the view of some seasoned
participants, two issues stood out in even sharper relief: the looming
problem of HCFCs, and the future of Protocol institutions, in particular
the Multilateral Fund.

The
steep increase in HCFC production and consumption in countries like China
and India, which actually mirrors the historic rise of CFCs, sharply
contrasts with the 2016 deadline for freezing HCFCs by Article 5
countries, scheduled for 2016. Some participants questioned the viability
of HCFC controls without Multilateral Fund assistance. However, while the
Multilateral Fund significantly assisted with the first transition from
ODS, it is not mandated to serve another transition, this time from HCFCs.
That leaves developing countries with high costs and less outside support,
hardly an encouraging prospect. Some parties are therefore urging a
fully-funded, accelerated phase-out of HCFCs. This item might well steal
the limelight at MOP-19, in advance of the Fund’s replenishment in 2008.
If parties agree to replenishment in order to assist with HCFC phase-out,
the Protocol would need to be amended to respond to this new situation.
Therefore, the problem of HCFCs is intimately linked to the Montreal
Protocol’s future. It is also linked to the climate regime, since HCFCs
have global warming potential.

BEYOND THE CLOUDS
Parties at MOP-18 showed healthy enthusiasm in beginning to address the
future of the Montreal Protocol, no matter how amorphous it appears at
this stage. Arguably, this problem leads to more questions than answers,
but at least the parties are demonstrating a willingness to move ahead.
They have several months to ponder the future before offering their
initial views at OEWG-27. Will the Multilateral Fund be replenished, or
will funding be turned over to the GEF? Will the approaching phase-out
schedules provoke a spike in illegal trade? How can countries effectively
deal with the complex relationship between the ozone and the climate
regimes, in terms of CFCs and HCFCs? These are a few of the enticing
questions whose answers the parties will seek to answer.

The
Montreal Protocol is a pioneering example for other conventions, whether
in the kindergarten stage or approaching respectable seniority. However,
this does not mean that the Protocol is home free, rather, it faces a
daunting transition. While parties congratulated themselves on a
successful MOP-18, some warned that a redoubling of efforts to comply with
the phase-out schedules is indispensable to the ozone regime’s
continuous existence. One participant eloquently referred to the current
stage of the Protocol as the “Edmund Hillary step,” i.e., the last
push towards the peak of Mount Everest. The Montreal Protocol is close to
achieving its redeeming goal of ridding the world of substances that
destroy the ozone layer, although the final ascent – completing
phaseouts in non-Article 5 parties and supporting Article 5 parties as
they meet their own commitments – may prove to be the most difficult.
The sobering debate that unfolded in the air-conditioned halls of Vigyan
Bhawan over the week was a poignant reminder that the view from the summit
may turn out to be either opaque, or bathed in spectacular sunlight. As a
delegate mused, while the Montreal Protocol is close to completing its
lifespan, reincarnation is always a possibility.

TWEFLTH CONFERENCE OF THE
PARTIES TO THE UNFCCC AND SECOND MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE KYOTO
PROTOCOL: UNFCCC COP 12 and Kyoto Protocol
COP/MOP 2 will take place from 6-17 November 2006, in Nairobi, Kenya.
These meetings will coincide with the twenty-fifth meetings of the
UNFCCC’s subsidiary bodies. For more information, contact: UNFCCC
Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail: secretariat@unfccc.int; internet: http://www.unfccc.int

SECOND
MEETING OF THE PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS REVIEW COMMITTEE (POPRC): This
Stockholm Convention meeting will take place from 6-10 November 2006, in
Geneva, Switzerland. For more information, contact: Secretariat of the
Stockholm Convention; tel: +41-22-917-8191; fax: +41-22-797-3460; e-mail:
ssc@pops.int; internet: http://www.pops.int

EIGHTH
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE BASEL CONVENTION: Basel
COP-8 will be held from 27 November - 1 December 2006, in Nairobi, Kenya.
For more information, contact: Secretariat of the Basel Convention; tel:
+41-22-917-8218; fax: +41-22-797-3454; e-mail: baselcop8@unep.ch; internet: http://cop8.basel.int/

CSD
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PREPARATORY MEETING: The
fifteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development will be
preceded by an Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting, which will take
place from 26 February - 2 March 2007, at UN headquarters in New York.
This is the second, or policy year, of the implementation cycle during
which the Commission will continue its focus on the following areas:
energy for sustainable development, industrial development, air
pollution/atmosphere and climate change. For more information, contact: UN
Division for Sustainable Development; tel: +1-212-963-8102; fax:
+1-212-963-4260; e-mail: dsd@un.org; internet: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd15/csd15_ipm.htm

THIRD
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION ON PERSISTENT
ORGANIC POLLUTANTS: POPs COP-3 is
scheduled for 30 April - 4 May 2007, in Dakar, Senegal. For more
information, contact: Stockholm Convention Secretariat; tel:
+41-22-917-8191; fax: +41-22-797-3460; e-mail: ssc@pops.int; internet: http://www.pops.int/

FIFTEENTH
SESSION OF THE UN COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: The
fifteenth session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-15)
will be held from 30 April - 11 May 2007, at UN headquarters in New
York. For more information, contact: UN Division for Sustainable
Development; tel: +1-212-963-8102; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: dsd@un.org; internet: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/policy.htm

OPEN-ENDED
DIALOGUE ON THE FUTURE KEY CHALLENGES OF THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL: This
meeting is scheduled for 2-3 June 2007, in Nairobi, Kenya. For more
information, contact: Ozone Secretariat; tel: +254-20-762-3850/1; fax:
+254-20-762-4691; e-mail: ozoneinfo@unep.org

NINETEENTH
MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL: MOP-19
is scheduled to take place from 17-21 September 2007, in Montreal, Canada.
For more information, contact: Ozone Secretariat; tel: +254-20-762-3850/1;
fax: +254-20-762-4691; e-mail: ozoneinfo@unep.org; internet: http://ozone.unep.org/

This issue of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin ï¿½
<enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Nienke Beintema, Alice
Bisiaux, Reem Hajjar and
Andrey Vavilov, Ph.D. The
Digital Editor is Dan
Birchall. The Editor is
Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James "Kimo" Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the United
Kingdom (through the
Department for International
Development - DFID), the
Danish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the Government of
Germany (through the German
Federal Ministry of
Environment - BMU, and the
German Federal Ministry of
Development Cooperation -
BMZ), the Netherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the European Commission (DG-ENV)
and the Italian Ministry for
the Environment and
Territory General
Directorate for Nature
Protection. General Support
for the Bulletin
during 2006 is provided by
the
United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), the Swiss Agency for
Environment, Forests and
Landscape (SAEFL), the
Government of Australia, the
Austrian Federal Ministry
for the Environment, the New
Zealand Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Trade, SWAN
International, the Japanese
Ministry of Environment
(through the Institute for
Global Environmental
Strategies - IGES) and the
Japanese Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry
(through the Global
Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
into French has been
provided by the
International Organization
of the Francophonie (IOF)
and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Funding for
the translation of the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
into Spanish has been
provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The
opinions expressed in the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors
and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD or
other donors. Excerpts from
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA.